Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon...

December 26, 1989

Dear Father Gruner:


           Your crusade for making known to as many as possible the whole truth about Fatima deserves nothing but praise and encouragement. I first began t take a special interest in Fatima way back in the 1940s (don’t know if you were born then yet) when I read the Canon Barthas book, Our Lady of Light. And then, for many years, I did what was in my very limited powers to make known the story and the message of Fatima, In articles and sermons, at All ­Night Vigils and Fatima Days. I even built an outdoor Fatima Shrine, as the enclosed post card shows you.


The Ill-fated Vatican II revolution, falsely called a "renewal." put and to my activities in behalf of Fatima in Novas Ordo churches and among Novus Ordo Catholics. But I have never lost my interest in Fatima nor my devotion to Our Lady of Fatima and to her Message.

And now, in these latter years, by the grace of God, you have appeared on the scene to broadcast far and wide the whole Fatima Message to a dying; world, which seems to have long gone past the point of no return, so that one wonders how it can possibly avoid a terrible divine punishment, which more and more appears inevitable. Only some kind of special divine intervention of mercy could wake up mankind, particularly the Catholic world, and bring it to its senses.


             But whatever can be justly said in praise of your work in behalf of Of Lady of Fatima and her Message, the same cannot be said equally of your treatment of certain issues closely connected with the Faith, and particularly such issues as those of John Paul II and Vatican II. The whole truth on such issues as these must also be brought out. In other words, the whole truth about Fatima mast be handled within the context of the whole truth about the Faith in all its details.


What I have especially in mind here, though not exclusively, is the error of false ecumenism, which is so widespread today, as you well know. Whether or not you, who are rightly so intent on exposing error, have ever as much as mentioned false ecumenism in any of your articles and speeches being one of the big errors of the day. I have no way of knowing, as I do not know everything that you have said. But I would like to know.

At this point, since it comes to mind at the moment, I would ask you to allow your esteemed and talented collaborator, Father Paul Leonard, to read this letter of mine also, and possibly let him have a copy of it. since what I am saying is of interest to both of you). And wherever I say to "you" In this letter, it may apply to either of you or to both of you.


            To get back to the false ecumenism of today - you know that it is heresy and you know what the consequences and. penalties are for it. And you also know who is the No. 1 promoter and defender of false ecumenism, namely John Paul II. It just isn't possible that you could be unaware of this. Never in the history of the Church has such quick and. such widespread publicity been given to a heresy. You need. not even be given examples of the heretical actions and words of John Paul II, since the whole world has seen and heard, among many other scandals, the likes of..the Canterbury Scandal, the Luther Scandal. the Jewish Synagague Scandal, and that ultimate scandal, the Assisi Abomination, which saw even "the abomination of desolation", that is, the statue of Buddha, placed upon a tabernacle, and from which ecumenical gathering a statue of Our Lady of Fatima was expressly excluded. You could just hear the Prophet Jeremias exclaim in agony, "Obstupescite, caelii” It simply is not possible that a man who propagates such flagrantly false ecumenism could e a genuine representative of Christ the Truth


            This is the same John Paul II of whom you boast as being “one of his strongest supporters." It should be clear to you that, if you are one of the strongest supporters of John Paul II, you are in danger of being taken one of the strongest supporters of his error of false ecumenism also, since he and his errors are inseparable, as long; as he leaves it that way. Put, seeing it in this light, you will no doubt be rightly horrified at the very thought of it, and you should surely have some second thoughts about John Paul II.


          I strongly suspect that you two, Father Gruner and Father Paul Leonard. have privately, just between yourselves, faced the agonizing dilemma of how to react publicly to a John Paul II who represents such manifest heresy. But, whatever may have been the disturbing thoughts that might have agitated you, the obvious fact, as far as I know, is that you have kept silent about the whole truth about John Paul II and his heresy of false ecumenism. You know that any mention of this publicly would have caused an instant loss of fol­lowers and. supporters, so that you might have found yourself facing your dwindling remaining followers and supporters and saying to them, "Will you also go away?"


You have shown unmistakably that you dread-having-anyone-accuse you of "blaming the Pope" or of being "against the Pope." But, Father, Father, do not let the unthinking critics intimidate you with such charges! Note well how     generalized and vague their charge is: "You are against the Pope," as if to say that you are against the Papacy Itself. They do not even bother to name the Pope against whom you are supposed to be speaking. They dare not say that "you are against John Paul II because of his heresy or false ecu­menism.” And, least of do they dare say that "you are against the false ecumenism of John Paul II," because that would immediately tell them that you are right and that they are wrong.


        And when it comes to such a manifest act against the One True Faith, is the notorious false ecumenism of John Paul II, we cannot take refuge in the excuse that God alone is the One Who is to blame John Paul II for this, and not we. The fact is that God has given us the gift of the True Faith, with the obligation to profess it openly, even in the face of an occupant of the Chair of Peter, as is shown in the admittedly rare ease of the St. Paul vs. St. Peter confrontation. God will issue the final judgment all right, but we must in the meantime acknowledge and defend the truth, the whole truth of the Faith. We dare not condone manifest heresy.


You may be interested in knowing that I began praying for the conversion - yes, conversion! - of John Paul II to the True faith as soon as he was e­lected, and I am still doing so.


          As to Vatican II, the "monumental" article, "Let Catholics Have the Tra­ditional Mass," clearly and emphatically upholds Vatican II as a genuinely good, and authoritative, Ecumenical Council whose decrees must be accepted and obeyed. This is the position that you hold.


          There have been many like that, But there have also been those who at first thought that Vatican II was fully orthodox and in conformity with the Faith, and therefore acceptable, even if they may have been uneasy about what it taught and commanded, only to find. on further study and reflection, that it was by no means what they at first thought it was. To take an example - among those who. after a time, began to see the Council in a clearer light was the NEW JERSEY CATHOLIC NEWS, with which you may be acquainted. The au­thor of some jarringly frank articles (maybe Father Wickens?) on Vatican II pointed out as many as ten "time bombs’ in the document on the Sacred Liturgy alone! And among these "time bombs" were some of the very passages that you quoted so authoritatively in the "monumental" article, “Let Catholics Have the Traditional Mass."


         I believe that both of you, who are so eager to discover the whole truth and  make it known, would also, on further study and reflection, detect the "time bombs" in the Liturgy document of Vatican II. and elsewhere.


        Your article on the Traditional Mass was in a hurry to declare emphat­ically, and with an air of ex cathedra finality. that the Council did not decree that there should be a new rite of the Mass. What you should. have said is that the Council did not directly and expressly, and in so many words, de­cree that there should be a new rite of the Mass. Most of the Council Fathers if not nearly all of them, did not consciously plan on a new rite of the Mass - though the so-called "experts" knew what they were doing but the con­fusing and meandering texts of Sacrosanctum Concilium that you quote are sim­ply bristling with possibilities for-an entirely new rite. They leave things wide open for such a new rite.


"The rite of the Mass is to be revised" means, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Traditional Mass is no longer to remain what St. Pius V gave to the Church and what we had known so well before the late Vatican Council. "Revised" means "changed, " and you yourselves stated in one of your talks that the Council did net say just what was to be changed, and that is the way the demolition "experts" wanted it, so that they could interpret and maneuver everything at will.


The "revision" was supposedly intended to make things "more clear", as if the St. Pius V Missal had not already made things clear enough in preserv­ing "the intrinsic nature and purpose" of the parts of the Mass. And some unnamed "elements" were to be discarded, while others, also unnamed, were to be "restored," as if that isn't exactly what St. Plus V had done through his specially chosen commission of learned men. And here it is well to remind. you that the Council of Trent did not appoint a commission to examine the Roman Missal, as you have the unfortunate Michael Davies saying. St. Plus V is the one who appointed that commission well after the Council of Trent had already adjourned.


The Vatican II Council adds that those unnamed "elements" to be "restored" are to be restored "according to the pristine norm of the Holy Fathers," as if ignoring the fact that this is exactly what St. Plus V had already done. His commission RESTORED the ancient Roman Missal "according to the pristine norm and rite of the Holy Fathers." as is clearly stated in Quo Primum. There is so much confusing and contradictory talk about "revising" and "preserving” and “reviging” and “restoring” and “Preservig” and “restoring” in the article that one wonders what was really done by St. Plus V and what it was that Vatican II wanted done.


        It must be made as clear as could be that St. Plus V, in response to the command of the Council of Trent. RESTORED the ancient Roman Missal, as is very plainly indicated on the very title page of the traditional Latin Missal As a result, the current Roman Missal, with all its local variations, in use at the time of the Council of Trent. was replaced by the ancient Roman Missal with only a few exceptions being allowed to continue, so that uniformity was thus established throughout the Latin Rite Church, and it was intended to be that way "in perpetuity."


        And Vatican II comes along to destroy what St. Pius V had done! The re­stored ancient Roman Missal was to be "revised", that is, "changed," so that we would no longer have the traditional Roman Missal with its traditional Latin Mass, which was a "'Lawfully recognized rite" that even Vatican II sup­posedly "wishes to preserve."" Then comes the sudden about-face, with Vati­can II "also desiring" to "revise carefully" that "lawfully recognized rite" which it had just said It wanted "to revise.And the excuse for that? To make the "lawfully recognized rite" conform better to "sound tradition" - as if St. Plus V had not already done that.


        But what, pry tell, does Vatican II mean by “sound tradition” if it does not accept the “sound tradition” of St. Pius V and his ancient Roman Missal, restored according to the "norm and rite of the Holy Fathers?"


Anyone acquainted with the dubious thinking of modernists know that they are fond of talking about a "living" tradition, which to them means a "changing" tradition that adapts itself to "present-day circumstances and needs." This is nothing else but evolutionary tradition. The modernists detest what they call. with a derogatory connotation, statatis" tradition, that is, an unchanging and stable tradition based upon the immutable truths of the Faith. John Paul. II himself has spoken of a "living" tradition in criticiz­ing traditionalists who insist on preserving the traditional Latin Mass of St. Plus V, as well as other Catholic traditions. And this is the same John Paul 11 who has graciously conceded that traditionally-minded Catholics should have the traditional Mass!?


     If you still do not believe that Vatican II, with its demand for a "re­vision" of the rite of the Mass “in the light of sound tradition" and to fit It to the "circumstances and needs" of the day, did not open. up the way wide for such a rite as the Novus Ordo, then consider further and more thoughtfully this time, what else you quoted  from Sacrosanctum Concillum.


"In order that sound tradition be retained ... there must be no Innova­tions unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them...” Is that one ever loaded.


First, there is the categorical-sounding declaration that "there must be no innovations..." Sounds great. But then comes another sudden reversal. The "Innovations,” on second thought, may be Introduced, if "the good of the

Church" certainly requires them. And all this for the sake of "sound tradi­tion?"


"Innovation" means "change.” Innovation means introducing something new, something that was not there before. And it means that what was before, shall be no longer. It means that genuine, unchanging tradition must give way to a changing, evolutionary type of tradition, mistakenly called "sound" tradi­tion - the idea being to justify and cover innovation with good-sounding terminology, and with a pretense at fidelity to the "forms already existing.”


          The Nouus Ordo Is an innovation, as you yourselves have rightly made clear. Yet It Is fully justified by the contradictory and meandering wording of the Vatican II document on the Liturgy. This new rite, this innovation, was expressly introduced in order "to meet the present-day circumstances and needs," and because this “innovation” was “required," supposedly, by the genuine good of the Church. What we cannot deny is that it was Vatican II that opened up the wary for all this, the Council Fathers with their unawareness and sleepiness and blindness notwithstanding.


 The title given to your "monumental" article, "Let Catholics Have the Traditional Mass," is a monumental misfit, considering all that you say al­ready on the first two pages (42 & 43) of the article, and considering all that you quote from the Council, whose words you take to be authoritative and binding. If you mean by that title the "unrevised" Traditional Mass, as it came to us from St. Plus V, then you are contradicting the Council, which called for a "revision" of the Traditional Mass, end you are contradicting yourself, for you demand that the decree of the Council calling for that re­vision be obeyed. Put if you mean a "revised" Traditional Mass, you are again stating a glaring contradiction, for a “revised” supposedly "traditional" Mass is no longer the Traditional Mass.


          You know how the revision of the Mass prescribed by Vatican II (though you did not perhaps live through It the way we did) turned out to be a slow, gradual. but accelerating. process. beginning 1under John XXIII and continueing more rapidly, then finally concluding with the Novus Ordo under Paul VI.

        What you do not indicate is whether the first cautious revisions would have been acceptable to you, and you would have been satisfied that we still had the "traditional" Mass - or whether perhaps also all the other revisions the preceded the Novas Ordo would still have fit your idea of a "traditional" Mass. Or, does your plea for the Traditional Mass mean just what it seems it say, that is, the unrevised Mass of St. Plus V, the Vatican II decree of revision not withstanding?


You make much of certain carefully chosen statements of John Paul II. For example, regarding the Traditional Mass, you show yourself impressed by the concession granted to traditional Catholics to have their Mass and thus satisfy their legitimate spiritual needs and preferences. And yet you cannot ­possibly fail to see that the gracious John Paul II continues to be the No. performer of the Novas Ordo in the Conciliar Church - the Novas Ordo that you condemn so strongly. And you know that he loves even a spectacular Novas Ordo performances. You should know all too well. about his spectacular liturgical extravaganza in Canada a few years ago, after which he publicly thanked the accompanying performers, Including. females in tights (as I've been told), for the "artistic" part of the program.


        I don't know in how many other places John Paul II has put on such "artistic" Noviis Ordo displays, but I do know that he did it in Indonesia, be­cause my brother sent me the English language Jakarta Post from Java, telling the story of John Paul's visit there, with a large picture on the front page showing John Paul blessing the many dancers scattered all over in front of the Novus Ordo stage.


        If some Vatican "bureaucrat" were to do the same thing, while throwing a few crumbs of consolation to traditional Catholics, you would probably call it the worst kind of hypocrisy... But John Paul II? For him, you do nothing but make him look Innocent of the disorders within the Conciliar Church, such as, for example, making everybody, from bureaucrats to archbishops to bishops to pastors to pries to Lay people, look guilty of the Communion in the hand sacrileges and outrages, except for the one who is ultimately responsible and whom no number of "conditions" could exonerate.


       This letter is already painfully long, so I will conclude by saying the Your Fatima Crusade needs to be by all means continued, but I do hope that you will take a better look at what is really happening in the Conciliar Church and that its leader and his collaborators really stand for. May God give you the light and guidance you need., and may Our-Lady help you do what is right and good in God's sight.


In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary


Needless to say, this letter received no response from Fr. Gruner who continues to propogate both Fatima and the post-Conciliar Church.


Pax et Bonum!

Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.